Here of late we have been favored with attentions of several commenters who don’t like Donald Trump. So they have criticized him, sometimes quite ferociously. Yet, for various reasons, none of them, no, not one of them, have had much to say about Hillary Clinton. Oddly, the same thing seems to be true of Hillary Clinton. She too would much rather talk about Trump.

The first thing I saw on Hillary Clinton’s website.

What is the first thing you see on Donald Trump’s website?

America is BackI am Your Voice.

When we vote, our object should be to compare and contrast the candidates. Since I am a Trump supporter — and I want others to vote for him — I have said why I intend to vote for him. Meanwhile, we have heard others complain how awful they believe he is. When asked, these critics have had nothing much to say about Clinton. So as a political junky I feel a bit obligated to fill in the void.

This coming weekend I hope to put together a post that does two things.

The first will be a discussion of H. Clinton’s public record. What has she accomplished?

The second will be review of H. Clinton’s campaign website. What does she propose to do if elected.

The following weekend I hope to put together a post that compares and contrasts the differences between governing approaches of the two major candidates. Here I will highlight two issues.

The growth of the power of government. Conservatives prefer limited government. Liberal Democrats are never satisfied the government is big enough. IS IMMIGRATION A NATURAL RIGHT? got into that issue somewhat. However, plainandsimplecatholicism‘s comment here, my reply, and his reply to my reply does a good job of laying out the issues involved.

The protection of our rights. Conservatives refer to natural, or God-given rights. Liberal Democrats deny such rights exist. Liberal Democrats think government gives us our rights. Tony‘scomment here, my reply, and his reply to my reply illustrates how we differ.

Frankly, I think the second of the two posts I have proposed will be the more important. Nevertheless, if the public can be convinced of Clinton’s malfeasance in public office — and of Trump’s relative sanity — the nefariousness of Clinton’s deeds are more likely to cost her the election.

So why is the second post more important? The second post will about the character of our people. Who we choose to govern us and how we choose to govern ourselves depends upon the character of our people. The first post, on the hand, will just be a relatively superficial comparison of the character of two presidential candidates. We cannot pretend to know these people. At best, we can only learn something about their record of public life.

Nevertheless, the character of the people we elect depends upon us. When we vote, what matters is what we want our elected leaders to do. If we want our leaders to lead us honorably, we will elect honorable leadership. If we want to elect leaders with high moral standards, then we must uphold high moral standards, and that second post will be a debate about moral standards.

25 thoughts on “OF A POST TO COME”

Nobody has their tongue perfectly under control. I bet you can find that passage in the Book of James that says as much. Trump does all the interviews he can and campaign rallies too. He is going to say stuff that does not sound bite well.

Hillary is a disaster. Trump is worse. Neither is fit for the leadership in this country

I don’t disagree, but one of them is very likely to be our president.

When people advocate Socialism, it is actually quite easy to poke the idea full of holes.
1. It has been tried repeatedly and even under the most ideal conditions. Every experiment failed.
2. We are trying it again in this country.
a. Almost nobody likes Congress.
b. Most Republicans are horrified by the nomination of Trump. Democrats don’t even try to defend Clinton. They just engage in beastly attacks on Trump.
c. Our budget is out of control. We are diverting so many resources from the private economy growth is stagnant.
d. Our Constitutional republic is at risk.
e. Factional politics is tearing at the fabric of our nation.
f. Our educational system has become a tool of indoctrination.
3. Logically, Socialism cannot work. It makes the same people responsible for protecting our property rights responsible for redistributing the wealth, that is, taking our property rights away from us.
4. Ethically, Socialism is wrong. Redistributing the wealth is stealing. Politicians use redistributing the wealth as a means to buy votes. This sort of practice is exactly what the Constitution was designed to prevent. It is why we are suppose to be a republic and not a democracy.

Talk about DANGEROUS! Hillary’s Hits just keep on coming. If she acts like she can get away with murder, maybe its because she already has, NUMEROUS TIMES!
Shawn Lucas is the latest figure associated with the DNC leaks and election fraud case to die in mysterious circumstances.He served Clinton with voter fraud papers that lead to Wasserman’s resignation.
Seth Rich, a DNC Data Director, was beaten, shot and killed in the morning of July 8 while he was walking home and talking on the phone to his girlfriend. Police have said they haven’t determined if his murder was a botched robbery – however this is unlikely as the killer or killers appear to have taken nothing from their victim, leaving behind his wallet, watch and phone.Smith would have known about voter fraud if it existed.
Julian Assange’s lawyer, John Jones, QC, died this week after being hit by a train at a London station. Details of his demise are non-existant on the internet, but Assange has said he will release more of HILLARY’S emails.
Victor Thorn, prominent Clinton researcher and author, was also found unexpectedly dead this week.
Thorn was due to testify against the Clintons about the Clinton Foundation.

It appears you have a habit of posting the same comment on multiple sites. That tends to annoy people. If you post comments like this on multiple random Liberal Democrat sites, they will just treat it as spam. Hence, your comment went into the spam bucket.

I am not much of a conspiracy theorist. I think the Clintons are crooked, but I have no idea whether they are murderers. Admittedly, the news media does cover up for the Clintons, but murder? If you are going to make accusations or such inferences, you have an obligation to provide references.

Tom,
I’m cranking this story because our free press is no longer free or ours.
I did a little simple math and everyone should know, you can’t argue with math.
I first read about the Hit list when it only had 20 or thirty names. Now it has as many as 90. Upwards of 45 are former Clinton bodyguards.

No tin hat stuff here. You can verify the facts. Seth Rich’s family were complaining about people “politicizing ” Seth’s death UNTIL Shawn Lucas’s death and the news of all the others in the past 6 weeks.

One more comment on how there are no God given rights to address in your second post. Think of this in Aristotelian terms of “act” and “potential”.

As the acorn has the God given teleological potential to become an oak, every human has the God given potential to return to God. In both cases, however, that God given potential is contingent. In the case of humans, those contingencies include living life in accordance with the moral virtues which God universally wills in us such that we try to develop into the ultimate potential that God built into us just as God built into the acorn the ultimate potential to become an oak.

That is not the same thing as saying, however, that we have a “right” to return to God any more than the acorn has a “right” to become an oak. Saying that we have such a “right” is to ignore God’s merciful act of beginning and continuously suspending that potential.

God “allows” us to return to Him even though we are imperfect sinners who, just the opposite, have absolutely no such right. Every moment of our existence, God suspends our existence and allows it, whether we merit it or not. Indeed, we can never earn or merit such a generous gift. We have no “right” to any of it. It is a gift of love and generosity which cannot by any proposition be repaid. Are we going to give God His life and His potentiality to be God? Unlike everything else in the universe that has contingent potentiality, God cannot have that attribute – God just IS. God is pure act, pure being, the unmoved and continuing mover of all things. The love of God is not repayment and it is not our “right”, again it is our “responsibility”. How do we meet that responsibility?

We can only try to love each other as Jesus taught us. We can only try to love God for his mercy in giving us life and from the beginning and during all time, suspending a universe that allows us our contingent potential to return to God.

To think that we have a “right” to life or liberty or property or even the pursuit of happiness is just ridiculous. We have a responsibilty to, out of the love God asks of us, not to take these gifts away from others and to share them when we can so that we all may try to meet the contingent potential that God sends us toward. Humans who live virtuously out of love define, enforce and arbitrate our rights in reference to each other in accordance with our universal “responsibilties” to God to do so.

The virtues are the practice of those God given responsibilities. And as I have stated before, virtues are universal but their practice is also situational to time and place. They are objectively definable but they are also subjective to the individual. And they are, in actually practice, also most often (if not always) a precarious and imperfect balance between two vices (just as the virtue of courage is a balance between being foolhearty and being cowardly).

“In the mean time THE Donald has produced wealth, jobs and opportunity and has never held public office.”

While I don’t feel the need to defend that fine piece of over-the-top hyperbole about Secretary Clinton, I find your view of Mr. Trump very interesting.

Is it really a virtue for Mr. Trump to have no record of having served this nation or his community or even his church? If we make out all motivations for service in government as inherently dishonorable, don’t we set up a self-filling prophesy that we will only get dishonorable public servants? Wouldn’t that include Mr. Trump if he were to get elected?

Mr. Trump makes no bones about his view that he sees the self-gratifying accumulation of personal wealth and luxury for its own sake as its own self-evident virtue (as compared to the old Protestant concept of any “calling” being justified if its ultimate purpose humbly and temperately contributes to the greater glorifying of God), but you seem here like a normally very thoughtful Christian. I admit that I don’t really understand this preaching of a “prosperity gospel” by its advocates, usually TV evangelists. Perhaps it is the natural result of some strange Weberian alliance between conservative Christians and capitalists under the Republican banner, but I’m not expert enough to know if it really has a scriptural justification.

Does the Bible really say that we should honor wealth and luxury as a sign of God’s approval. What about the Sermon on the Mount? What about Jesus’ statement that it would be easier for a camel to walk through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to return to God? Isn’t there a double standard if Clinton is to criticized for her wealth and how she accumulated it, but Trump is to be honored for his far greater wealth no matter how many people he conned and cheated to get it? What are your thoughts? What are Tom’s thoughts?

Nitpicking. You may as well say being a billionaire is a disqualification for public office. Is there something wrong with being wealthy? Is not the problem putting wealth before God. Do we have to be wealthy to put the importance of wealth before obedience to God?

We are only men and women. We are not particularly smart, and we cannot see into each others hearts. When we vote, we are just suppose to judge each candidate’s for public office. As far as I know, Trump has not committed any crimes. If that were the case, then it would be inappropriate to elect him to public office. We could not trust him to enforce laws he is willing to break.

H. Clinton, on the other hand. Has she broken any laws? Has she participated in the execution of policies that flout Constitutional law? Has H. Clinton shown an inclination to put the acquisition of wealth ahead of loyalty to God and country.

“Here of late we have been favored with attentions of several commenters who don’t like Donald Trump. So they have criticized him, sometimes quite ferociously. Yet, for various reasons, none of them, no, not one of them, have had much to say about Hillary Clinton. Oddly, the same thing seems to be true of Hillary Clinton. She too would much rather talk about Trump.”

I have something to say about the Clinton’s in my post today, King Solomon, Post One, Clinton’s, Bill’s and Pill’s.

We all produce excrement regularly and vomit when we are ill. Even the finest dogs do that, and in that respect men are no different.

Matthew 15:18 New King James Version (NKJV)

18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man.

What has Clinton or Trump done to justify your abuse? Their behavior is hardly perfect. Neither are what I would call a model citizens. Trump often comes as arrogant, and he says things about his opponents he should not say. Clinton belongs in jail. Nevertheless, what distinguishes you from them? Why do judge them by calling them names?

When you are a public person, nothing is private, especially the things you say in public. What distinguishes me from them is that they say and do publicly things I don’t do privately. As public persons, their motivations for their obvious misconduct is irrelevant. They have done wrong. The public then judges them for it. That is how being a public person works.

Now, I find it rather strange that you are using the “who are you to judge” defense when you have made several judgments regarding Clinton that you are, to my knowledge, are unqualified to make i.e. that she should be in jail. Now, I say that they are terrible people because everything they have said and done so far supports that contention. What has come from their mouths is evil and so we can logically conclude that what is in their hearts is also evil based on the passage you provided. Where I fall short in my judgment is their disposition. I make not judgment as to what ought to happen to them. I merely say that, based on their reprehensible conduct, I shall not be voting for them. It is you who have actually gone too far by saying something specific should happen as a consequence.

When you start throwing around judgments of others, be they Clinton or myself, make sure no one can throw a tu quoque back at you.

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.